Just to correct you on your penultimate point. I'd like to DEMYSTIFY THIS.
For males: a basic Y-DNA self-test is around $156---eg: the YDNA-37 or 37 markers test. [No hidden charges or subscriptions]. Anybody can order them---& some MILLIONS of normal run-of-the-mill individuals already have --including me !--It's really easy + no rocket science is needed !!
The other Mt-DNA (maternal line) test for males or females can be ordered (also on-line) for slightly more.
Take a look at www.ftdna.com - which, in my view, is technically the best firm -(Don't use Ancestry.com as they are money-grabbers + unreliable; as also is Sorensen et al)...
For those who want to wait for something cutting edge--there is a new GENO 2.0 coming out end October, (around $220 I think) which is predicted to be a "wow" kind of next-generation of testing, but the present tests are often exciting. Depends if one has gentry or plebby ancestry (as ever!). As I have used vocabulary such as "one"---this is a subtle hint I might possess one or 2 gentry ancestries.
It is not just Monsieur Ibsen who is descended from the vast "Plantagenet" or Angevin genetic pond of Richard III - there are some millions of his relatives alive today...Seriously! They just don't know it --& never will!

Cheers!
Gerard (UK)

I saw it done on an episode of Time Team once, and they said you could do it, but I simply assumed it would be very expensive.

I'm sure there would be many other descendants of the Plantagenets, but the trick seems to be finding those who've come down through a female line. I'd figured they could use one of the royals, but the lack of a strong female line seems to be a stumbling block. But it's just a wonderful thing that they'll be able to say for certain; not so long ago it would have had to remain an educated guess.

I've taken my mother's ancestry back to 17th century, but I have no idea what their original gene pool was. I've reached a point where I'm not likely to be able to go back much further with records (early 17th century on one line, but not as far on others), so it would just be nice to get a picture of their origins.

Thanks for the info!

Most of them have a difficult time tracing their ancestry and sometimes, DNA evidence is all there is.

about "23andMe"? Do you know anything about them and their autosomonal DNA test?

And a wave to you over the Pond!

....who was the gr gr granddaughter of Henry II. Haven't done any further research on that yet. I have pages and pages of gentry to study in my tree. It's a big job to do the research!

it would be very interesting if the bones of two boys found in the Tower in 1674 could be DNA tested to see whether they are the bodies of the two princes.

The bones, found under a stone staircase, were declared to be those of the two princes and were placed in an urn by order of Charles II and placed in Westminster Abbey, where they remain today. But many historians now think it's quite unlikely that these are the bones of the princes - it would have been an impossible task to have demolished a stone staircase, buried the bodies and rebuilt the staircase in a night, as the legend has it. It's believed far more likely that the bones were buried before the construction of the staircase, generations before the princes lived.

DNA testing could prove once and for all whether the bodies are those of the two Plantagenet princes, and if not, it weakens the case against Richard III considerably. But only the Queen can grant permission for the testing, and she has so far refused to do so. It's hard to believe she has so little curiosity about her distant family. Perhaps Prince Charles may be able to change her mind - he has a degree in archeology, which indicates an interest in history. We can only hope.

If children are in those coffins.

I'd never heard of them until a few months ago.

There seems to be an assumption that they contain the bodies of children, so presumably the coffins are small. If they are children, it seems on balance far more likely that they would be the missing princes than the bones found in the Tower.

It's hard to understand the attitudes of authorities who don't want to investigate - afraid their long-held prejudices won't hold up?

And it seems that the Westminster Archdiocese can give authority for the bones there to be examined, but they refuse, backed by the Queen and the government. I hope pressure will mount on them with the discovery of Richard III's bones. Some big Tudor lies have now been exposed, and it's time to solve a few more mysteries. Dig them all up and test them now that the technology is there.

...if a bit ghoulish here and there.

I've been reading about DNA tests for years and have been sorely tempted, especially with the advances made and the brick walls in my family history, but I haven't taken the plunge yet.

Still, this might be worth bringing up with the relatives on Facebook...

An interesting article on further testing being done on Richard's skeleton:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17841721-tale-of-richard-iiis-skeleton-is-filled-with-drama-and-its-not-over-yet

Move down to about halfway through the article, where it deals with mitochondrial DNA testing, which cannot guarantee proof of ancestry 100%. This perhaps explains why DUers on some threads have expressed disappointment with the results of some DNA tests they've undertaken. Seems that perhaps many of these tests are too generalised to be of much help with fine-tuning the genealogy of our ancesters.

There's still so much I have to learn on this subject, but how fascinating it is.

A brand-new War in the Wars of the Roses, this time between York & Leicester.